Bonmot the most serious "assault" on climate science has been made by those so called scientists you admire so much. It's called climate gate 2.0, for want of a better name.

Please tell me you have read at least some of the emails involved. If you have avoided reading them, in fear of what you might find, than no discussion is worth having. That would put you into the "none so stupid as he who doesn't want to know" category. I would hate to have to think that of you.

Bonmot you write

'Vacuous assertions and deliberate distortions by faith based bible-bashers is not science - it's obscene. '

It is not Creationist who have had to hide frauds, change textbooks and not even blush over the last 50 years. Your arrogant assertions are typical of the warmist tactics of silencing any thing that shows the idiotic nature of consensus science. Your billions of year dogma is a fine example of that. You have the nerve to call creationist obscene. Quite ironic really.

Runner,
Tales dreamed up by ignorant nomadic iron-age desert dwellers to explain the inexplicable are no "proof" of anything.

Interesting that you point to some vague scientific inconsistency to disprove something but offer no scientific proof in return to support your alternative version.

Your logic is that if there is some conflict in a theory such as evolution then it obviously follows that a white-bearded man did it all in seven days about 8,000 years ago. What's more, you know why and how and even what He looks like. Without evidence, that sounds somewhat arrogant.

There are two other things in the universe that have only theoretical explanations.

However Light and Gravity both appear to exist regardless of us not yet being able to completely understand everything about them.

Rache you write

'Your logic is that if there is some conflict in a theory such as evolution then it obviously follows that a white-bearded man did it all in seven days about 8,000 years ago'

at least you are honest enough to acknowledge the theory of evolution. I have never disputed that it takes faith to believe in our Creator. Just happens the facts support that faith far more than the evolution fantasy.

rache/quote..""However Light and Gravity..both appear to exist regardless of us not yet being able to completely understand everything about them.""

yes...amasing things
light...[emmission of individual photon particles
by specifidc events...rel;easing photons in waves]

photons..of them selves unseen
untill they are reflected..off something
allowing us to see...
everything..[able to be seen..via the photonic spectrum]

gravity...[more of the same
attracting..the same..shall be a given]
the more you got..the more you attract..till in time ya is too fat[big]..and capture even the photonic emmissions...and other black stuff [matter]..we cant see..

i was facinated about how..'science
described the random elctron motion..within a containment...
causes presure...by them..lol..bumping against the sides

how i envisioned it is the orbital fields
forced to interact..with other orbital fields
[as more air molicules get pumped in...the 'orbital fields'
or rather orbit path..of the electrons take...

gets bumped down
to a lower orbit[causing ultimatly a change of state]

just as cooling would achieve

releasing the molicules...is like heating
allowing the orbiting part..into a higher orbit

[plus the weight..of these electrons..being closer or further...increasing/decreasing their massed affects..[as they move in
its like a skater doing their spin trick]

with little fact we can make great undwerstandings
[let there be light...is a rather important basis..for life
and darkness..[nuthin]..must preceed somethin[like light]

but nuthing...comes from nuthin
life comes from life[i can prove this]
can you prove life came from nuthin..[or name how science 'says'..life was begat

[something must preceed something
cause/affect...no cause..no affect]
science claims fact..so reveal the fact
or admit ya got theories...you 'sell' as fact

pretending to know
yet not able to explain..!
l;et alone name..the first ..[begining]

well thats deciete
[conning only those
needing to be decieved..[atheoists]
anti-god mob...

the anti knowledge lot][agnostics]
we can find agreement in athiest-isms..[in rejecting any creed
as containing any fullsome faulsifyable truth]..

it is what it is...[a huh?-man invention..
[just like the THEORY..of evilootion]
science claims proof

lets hear it

Hasbeen
If I reply then the inference is I take you seriously (I don’t) and you’re on to something.
If I don’t reply then the inference is I’m dodging and you’re on to something (you’re not).

For the benefit of runner:

If scientists use raw data and don’t correct for systematic biases, it is evidence of “fraud”.
If scientists correct for the systemic biases, they’re fudging the data and it is evidence of “fraud”.

If scientists say the science is settled (they don’t) they’re dogmatists.
If scientists say it isn’t, then clearly the so-called “sceptic” position is tenable (it isn’t).

And so on and on ad nauseam.

Hasbeen, visit all the “sceptic’ blogs you like, but the science is the science – whether you believe it or not.

Ok, so the so-called “sceptics” hack a whole lot of emails and launch a campaign of deliberate distortion, misrepresentation and character assassination and, despite multiple investigations showing the science of global warming is valid, they do it all again without nothing new to add.

Sheesh, even poor ol’ deaf, dumb and blind Freddie knows that the timing of the ‘releases’ were ideologically motivated.

.

Rummer
“I have never disputed that it takes faith to believe in our Creator. Just happens the facts support that faith far more than the evolution fantasy.”

Facts about a "Creator", what facts?

runner, which part of this don't you understand:

>> our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth) ...and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution).

Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.

Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. <<

Science is NOT a faith based religion as you assert, rummer.